Twitter, Facebook, and news outlets are flooded with mourners after Zom classes. I feel the same way.
My eyes were tired and tired on the first day of two consecutive zom lessons. I sat down and watched something stupid on Netflix, I drank a glass of wine and I didn’t do anything fruitful until I finally went to bed. I have had countless zom meetings before, and I have hosted many. Some are overjoyed. So what was different?
So I spent a lot of time thinking, posting, talking. And obviously – because it’s a video conference Almost But duplicating face-to-face interactions is rare, and it consumes our energy. And anthropology can help explain the difference. (I generally use zoom to represent video conferencing forums.
We see faces in the magnifying room with 30 students – just in class. We see eye movement. We can hear sounds. It can even be improved through conversation – it means hearing people think out loud. It is somewhat versatile. We see gestures, at least some big things. All of this is information that we use to our understanding of human interaction. So far, so good.
Zoom works well for members of the teaching staff, or for groups with regular meetings, about who to talk to and how to show interest. The system can be maintained as long as the symphony is under the authority of the authority. The horns are eagerly awaited. It is stable. Information and views can be exchanged. It hits a long email exchange any day!
But in the more interactive, active classrooms I plan to create, this is horrible. Instead of organizing a classroom purpose (which does not always succeed) in organizing undemocratic discourse, instead of teaching an integrated teacher-centered education, all human interaction tools have been recruited.
For decades, in my studies, I have learned to read a section well – fit posture, breath, laughter, eye contact. My lessons are successful when everyone is very happy and wants to talk to each other. As people sat up, they said, “Wait! You mean, like, saltines and their ilk, eh? Because they have a new way of understanding the world: that anthropology is supernatural. As students hover around a text, they create a document that they can concentrate on and be proud of. When people laugh at the same time. Influence and knowledge and interaction work together.
I also analyzed the discussion a little. In a “normal” conversation — and that’s a non-traditional formula, right? -When one speaker finishes his speech and another begins, there is usually a short overlap. And when it works well – when the listener succeeds in controlling the contours, matching the speaker’s rhythm and speed, and waiting for the end of the speech – it’s like a symphony. And even when we want to fix the interaction, it is sometimes included in the conversation as a joke. Conversation has a beat. Even our brain waves are similar in conversation. Deborah Tannen writes: “A well-rounded conversation is as exciting as an emotional experience.” “A Man’s Place in the World and the Way to Become a” Health Vision “” (citing AL Becker).
Anthropologists, linguists, and sociologists who analyze conversations have certainly shown some common traits around the world. NJ Enfield’s latest book How do we talk And the work of discussion analysts like the late Charles Goodwin demonstrates versatility, optimism, fast turnarounds, and international reliability in microseconds. Goodwin reminds us: “Collaborative action is at the center of human language, and symbols are essentially cohesive structures in which one person moves over another.”
My magnification classes are not like this.
Apologize, repair is needed. People are constantly talking at the same time and interrupting the other person’s signal. I change views from one screen to another from time to time to scan faces (at least for those who do not choose to post blank screens, who need rest, more activity, or absence). I am looking into my eyes, listening to the completion, listening to a breath of fresh air ready to speak. I constantly push my lifelong, trained habits through those “channel” clues that encourage the speaker to continue. Hmmm, yes, I know. None of that will work, The platform is designed for one speaker at a time. It’s a public model of how dialogue works, but we haven’t found it in practice.
In classrooms, we see heads tilting, diverting attention, looking in one direction or the other.
People use sight as communication information; That’s why we have sclera. (Not just to watch as if One person; Sometimes it is good to look away. Many animals, including many humans, view direct vision as a threat. We want “common attention” – that assurance that everyone is sharing their attention. We look at it, or down or back, or we look at the image on the screen, which may not be in the center. what does it mean? We always want to know. Why did they do that?
Because when we meet, it’s not just about the content, it’s about the meaning. The meaning is always practical – it does things. She said I am confused Classification Just as an accusation or an internal joke or an explanation or just to show leadership or invite transparency? He was laughing With I or AT Me? Classroom interaction means more than just “content” or “information.” If that were the case, we would never need to interact.
Everyone is looking forward to the symbolic use of these platforms. Cameras are being distributed (unless people turn off their videos, so that they can take a break from interviews or cover up many tasks or omissions), but we are not really looking at each other.
Thus, all of the communication signals that human beings rely on are thin, flat, effortless, or completely impossible. But we can interpret them anyway.
Technology does not fully determine our interactions. Medium is not always the message. Writing, Socrates’ speed, brought some good things to the world. We can also write hymns of praise or call out hatred. A hammer can make a temple – or it can kill innocent people. But these technologies exist Capacity, As Gibson points out. Although they can sit in the back, it is easier to sit in front of a chair. You can use Facebook for poetry. Users may object to the intentions of the designers. I’m sure there’s a way Abduction Zoom – and I don’t mean Zoombomb; I mean, let’s work together to find a way to improve.
Although pedagogy and interaction are very close to our platforms. Lecture classrooms have a central speaker and a large audience — although a determined teacher can get students to walk around in a stadium-like setting. Assessment systems assume that the teacher controls all communication unless the discussion board is enabled.
“To the pillar of online learning” or “online learning” offers many different opportunities – for the same interaction in conversations, to post short video messages. Many brilliant teachers are making good use of these options. I accept this, and of course, we need to learn more about the potential of more platforms.
Although difficult, I used the Zoom subdivision section for some tasks. In a classroom, where you are in project groups, I have to put the students in a group yourself, and it takes measurable minutes, then it takes a while to join groups, and then it takes time to get out of each group… I don’t count, but it really takes time, They get upset over things. The time of his death is a killer for the rhythms.
When I see technology platforms such as zoom in on some simulations, I notice the longing for three-dimensional faces and bodies, eyes, and breath.
Human beings are perfectly compatible with each other. If a well-adjusted conversation gives a “health vision,” it is not surprising that an awkward, confusing, interrupted conversation gives the opposite. We constantly interpret the movements, time, breath, views, and motivations of others. It is our beautiful gift. Therefore, we interpret distorted views, interrupted conversations, as the technology, not the speaker. And that, my human friends, is a myth of human-technological-semiautomatic inequality.